Skip Navigation
American College of Physicians Logo
  • Subscribe
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Sign In
    Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
    INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
    Sign In|Set Up Account
    You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
    INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
    Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
    Annals of Internal Medicine
    SUBSCRIBE
    Subscribe to Annals of Internal Medicine.
    You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your purchase.
Annals of Internal Medicine Logo Menu
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives
  • Author Info
Advanced Search
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Editorials |17 May 2005

The New York Case: Lessons Being Learned Free

Paul A. Volberding, MD

Paul A. Volberding, MD
From University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-111

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
  • From University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-111

    Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: Consultancies: Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck; Honoraria: Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche; Stock ownership or options (other than mutual funds): Immune Response Corp.

    Current Author Address: Paul A. Volberding, MD, VAMC 111, 4150 Clement Street, San Francisco, CA 94121.

×
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Jump To
  • Full Article
  • FULL ARTICLE
      1. References
  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplements
  • Audio/Video
  • Summary for Patients
  • Clinical Slide Sets
  • CME / MOC
  • Comments
  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
  • Email Link
More
  • LinkedIn Link
  • CiteULike Link
Recently, a case of HIV infection in New York City gained wide public attention because of the possibility that it represented a novel and “superaggressive” virus, capable of causing rapid clinical disease and broadly resistant to available drugs (1). Publicizing this case before careful epidemiologic investigations were completed has been criticized as an overreaction that led to unnecessary public fear. The physicians and public health authorities involved argue that the unusual nature of this case—a transmitted drug-resistant virus and an apparently rapid disease course—required wide disclosure to find or prevent additional cases. At the recently concluded 12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, these vigorous debates prompted many press comments and a special 1-hour session to review the New York case and its implications. My purpose in this commentary is to place this case into the perspective of the broader experience with HIV infection and to explore the implications of how it was revealed to the public.
In the New York case, a middle-aged man who had been HIV negative in May 2003 was retested and found to be HIV positive in December 2004. Possible exposures included multiple instances of unprotected sex with men and abuse of methamphetamine. The patient described a 1-week illness with fever, pharyngitis, weakness, and fatigue about 6 weeks before his HIV diagnosis. However, at his first positive test result in mid-December, his HIV enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay showed full antibody reaction against viral antigens, which would be unusual for an acute HIV infection. Because the symptom complex of acute HIV is so nonspecific (and often absent), the timing of the patient's infection is uncertain. However, it could not have been much earlier than his previous HIV test in May 2003, which had yielded negative results. In mid-December 2004, the patient's CD4 cell count was 0.080 × 109 cells/L and his plasma viral load was 280 000 copies/mm3.
In mid-January 2005, the patient was referred to an HIV research clinic for possible acute or recent infection. There, additional testing showed the virus to have numerous mutations and reduced sensitivity to many antiretroviral drugs. It was sensitive to only 2 approved agents. Furthermore, the virus was unusual in its ability to use each of the 2 most common co-receptors for HIV, CCR5 and CXCR4. In summary, this patient was probably infected within the previous 20 months with a multiple drug class–resistant virus and had experienced a rapidly progressing immune deficiency, perhaps due to a more aggressive variant of HIV.
The HIV research clinician who made these observations contacted state and local health authorities about this case. The authorities decided to alert the public by issuing a press release and holding a press conference attended by many leading HIV physicians and scientists, as well as health officials.
The reaction to the public announcement was immediate, widespread, and, at least in some cases, clearly exaggerated. The case was immediately featured on local, national, and international news, in some cases with alarming headlines suggesting a possible outbreak of a new and much more aggressive “strain” of HIV. Implied in the most extreme reports was the possibility that this virus might be more contagious as well as more rapidly fatal, reminding us of similar groundless speculations early in the HIV epidemic about “casual transmission” of HIV. In the midst of this media-inspired public concern, health professionals must try to understand the public health implications of this case and reflect on the consequences of a public announcement with all-too-predictable consequences.
What are the key features of this case, and how unusual are they? This patient was infected with a virus resistant to most available antiretroviral drugs. Often, HIV is resistant to 1 or more drugs when transmitted (2). As is true with other infections, HIV variants that emerge in the community reflect incomplete suppression with antiretroviral agents, which selects for viruses with resistance mutations. When transmission occurs, the transmitted virus may carry some or all of the mutations from the original host. These mutations may weaken the virus in the original host—as measured by a reduced “replication capacity” in 1 commercial assay—but in the new host the virus grows more normally and has a higher replicative capacity (3). The prevalence of transmitted drug resistance is usually rather low and extends to only 1 or 2 drug classes. Transmission of virus resistant to 3 classes, as in the New York case, is much less common, but it has been reported many times (4).
Another question that sparked attention in the New York case was the unusual dual-tropic nature of the patient's virus. In almost all cases of recent HIV infection, the acquired virus uses a protein on the surface of cells, the CCR5 chemokine receptor, to gain entry into these cells (5). This variant is therefore common in earlier-stage HIV disease. It is transmitted even if the source is infected with a mixture of HIV variants, some that use the CCR5 receptor and others that use another protein, the CXCR4 receptor. Most people infected with HIV that uses the CXCR4 receptor (as in the New York case) have been infected for a considerable period of time. Instances of initial infection with the CXCR4 variant are rare and are seen only in persons who lack the gene for the CCR5 receptor (6), which was apparently not the situation in the New York case. The case was, in fact, even more unusual because the patient had a virus that could use either type of receptor to infect cells. These “dual-tropic” strains seem to prefer to use the CXCR4 receptor in vivo (7, 8) and are therefore associated with either a more advanced disease stage or a higher rate of clinical progression (9). Although seen in more advanced stages of HIV disease, however, viruses that use CXCR4 seem less transmissible than the common CCR5 form. Therefore, the type of HIV in the New York case is more consistent with a long-standing infection, not a recent one, or is the result of genetic susceptibility to infection by this unusual virus. Either explanation, if true, would decrease the public health significance of the reported case. If not a recent infection, the virus would resemble many others that have developed drug resistance in patients with advanced-stage disease. If the rapid appearance of the dual-tropic virus reflects a unique host susceptibility, others might not be readily infected after exposure.
The final feature of the case that seems unusual is the patient's apparently rapid progression to AIDS in a matter of weeks to months. The patient's disease stage was advanced according to CD4 cell count and HIV viral titer criteria, although he had been infected for no more than 20 months. However, this feature, while unusual, is not unprecedented. In fact, the natural history of HIV disease progression varies widely. Although several excellent cohort studies document a typical progression from initial infection to clinical AIDS in about a decade, the course of HIV disease, like that of other diseases, is roughly normally distributed. Some patients show no evident progression even after 15 to 20 years of infection, while others die rapidly (10, 11). An overview of 2 of the large cohort studies, the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and the Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS), showed that rates of disease progression vary widely, with several percent of patients dying within 1 year of becoming infected. The New York patient is clearly at the forward edge of this curve, progressing to a CD4 cell count well below 0.200 × 109 cells/L in a matter of months to 2 years, but he is not unique.
In the end, the patient in the New York case is infected with a virus that shows drug resistance, which is not a novel finding. His virus has the unusual feature of dual-receptor tropism, which is consistent with either long-standing infection or unusual host susceptibility, and a rate of disease progression that is rapid, but not more so than has been previously reported. This case, while unfortunate for the individual, poses no proven public health risk. His virus may not be readily transmissible, and his rapid disease progression may be principally a function of his own host response rather than due to a highly virulent virus. At a minimum, clarifying any public health risk awaits more extensive and careful research. At the moment, we don't even know if this virus has been transmitted to any other person.
Given the characteristics of this case, what were the concerns of the physicians and health authorities? Was their decision to publicize the case understandable and appropriate, or exaggerated and misguided? In contrast to the case itself, the answers to these questions are even more subjective and open to debate. We can only speculate on goals and motivations and don't yet know whether the net result of informing the public about this case in this manner and before more research was completed will be positive or negative.
Almost immediately, the HIV research clinicians notified the health authorities about the combination of highly resistant HIV and apparently rapid disease progression in this patient. After the patient's multiple unprotected sexual contacts were appreciated—apparently more than a month after the original HIV diagnosis—health officials decided to issue a public alert. Assuming the health authorities were concerned about identifying possible similar infections connected to the index case, a more typical approach would involve an effort to find sexual contacts of the original case-patient and, in turn, the contacts of those individuals. This contact tracing would not have required, or benefited from, a public health alert and would have avoided understandable and predictably exaggerated public and media response to a public announcement.
The advantages of a public alert in this case seem limited. The identity of the index case-patient could not be revealed publicly, and he apparently did not know many of his sexual contacts. Physicians may have been more diligent in diagnosing acute HIV infection as a result of the alert, but many previous efforts to educate physicians to recognize acute cases of HIV infection for treatment or research referral have had little effect. Issuing a public alert and holding a press conference seem to have been unnecessary in this case, frightening the public while having little potential benefit. The press alert and press conference certainly did not facilitate the much more important epidemiologic investigation warranted by this unusual or even unique case. This investigation is now in progress.
Is, then, the New York case important from a biological or public health risk perspective, or is it merely an unusual juxtaposition of several findings that have been reported singly but not together? We simply don't yet know. As summarized, each central aspect of the case—transmitted highly resistant HIV, dual-tropic virus, and apparently rapid disease progression—is uncommon, and their simultaneous occurrence is extremely rare. But until more is known, this case remains only an interesting instance of HIV infection, albeit one that demands further investigation. When was the actual transmission? Can we find the source of this virus? Has it been transmitted, and if so did it share any of the features of the virus in the original case? These are crucial questions and do warrant pursuit.
Lost in much of the media-driven controversy in this case are the really important public health concerns. The following concerns, unfortunately, rarely generate headlines. Why are people still putting themselves at risk for transmission when we have expended so much effort to educate people that condoms offer excellent protection from HIV? Have our prevention efforts failed, or have we even really committed as a society to support efforts to prevent HIV transmission? All HIV infection comes from an infected source. Why are some persons with this virus not protecting others from this scourge? Was the source of this case-patient's infection aware that he was infected? Why have we failed so miserably to reduce the barriers to HIV diagnosis? Why are we failing to diagnose acute HIV infection even though we have reason to believe the high viral titers during the earliest days of infection dramatically increase transmission risk?
And what of the coepidemic of methamphetamine abuse? First a massive problem on the West Coast, addiction to this drug is now common across the United States. Methamphetamine, often consumed in repeated and frequent binges, is deeply linked to failure to observe safe methods of preventing HIV transmission, and methamphetamine use by those taking antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection is strongly associated with the type of poor medication adherence that often leads to the selection of drug-resistant mutations (11). These conditions create almost a perfect storm for both HIV drug resistance and for virus transmission.
Let's hope that we move quickly away from guessing or finger-pointing about the handling of New York case. Clearly, rigorous epidemiologic investigation is preferred over public alerts that cause only fear. But we should just as firmly insist that the true crises of HIV transmission—failure to use condoms, poor case finding of acute infection, and control of epidemic methamphetamine abuse—are the real issues in cases like this patient. While the true crises seem destined for the back pages of our press rather than the front pages, they are the true and continuing challenges even after more than 2 decades of the HIV epidemic. If the New York case allows us to question our failure in transmission prevention and to demand better performance, we may someday see some redeeming value in the trauma of the debate over the handling of this case.

References

  1. Markowitz
    M
    Mohri
    H
    Mehandru
    S
    Shet
    A
    Berry
    L
    Kalyanaraman
    R
    et al
    Infection with multidrug resistant, dual-tropic HIV-1 and rapid progression to AIDS: a case report.
    Lancet
    2005
    365
    1031
    8
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  2. Descamps
    D
    Chaix
    ML
    Andre
    P
    Brodard
    V
    Cottalorda
    J
    Deveau
    C
    et al
    French National Sentinel Survey of Antiretroviral Drug Resistance in Patients With HIV-1 Primary Infection and in Antiretroviral-Naive Chronically Infected Patients in 2001-2002.
    J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr
    2005
    38
    545
    552
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  3. Simon
    V
    Padte
    N
    Murray
    D
    Vanderhoeven
    J
    Wrin
    T
    Parkin
    N
    et al
    Infectivity and replication capacity of drug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 variants isolated during primary infection.
    J Virol
    2003
    77
    7736
    45
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  4. Little
    SJ
    Holte
    S
    Routy
    JP
    Daar
    ES
    Markowitz
    M
    Collier
    AC
    et al
    Antiretroviral-drug resistance among patients recently infected with HIV.
    N Engl J Med
    2002
    347
    385
    94
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  5. Philpott
    SM
    HIV-1 coreceptor usage, transmission, and disease progression.
    Curr HIV Res
    2003
    1
    217
    27
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  6. Sheppard
    HW
    Celum
    C
    Michael
    NL
    O'Brien
    S
    Dean
    M
    Carrington
    M
    et al
    HIV-1 infection in individuals with the CCR5-Delta32/Delta32 genotype: acquisition of syncytium-inducing virus at seroconversion.
    J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr
    2002
    29
    307
    13
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  7. Yi
    Y
    Shaheen
    F
    Collman
    RG
    Preferential use of CXCR4 by R5X4 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 isolates for infection of primary lymphocytes.
    J Virol
    2005
    79
    1480
    6
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  8. Zhang
    H
    Dornadula
    G
    Beumont
    M
    Livornese
    L
    Jr
    Van Uitert
    B
    Henning
    K
    et al
    Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in the semen of men receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy.
    N Engl J Med
    1998
    339
    1803
    9
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  9. Moyle
    GJ
    Wildfire
    A
    Mandalia
    S
    Mayer
    H
    Goodrich
    J
    Whitcomb
    J
    et al
    Epidemiology and predictive factors for chemokine receptor use in HIV-1 infection.
    J Infect Dis
    2005
    191
    866
    72
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  10. Phair
    J
    Jacobson
    L
    Detels
    R
    Rinaldo
    C
    Saah
    A
    Schrager
    L
    et al
    Acquired immune deficiency syndrome occurring within 5 years of infection with human immunodeficiency virus type-1: the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study.
    J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr
    1992
    5
    490
    6
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed
  11. Farzadegan
    H
    Henrard
    DR
    Kleeberger
    CA
    Schrager
    L
    Kirby
    AJ
    Saah
    AJ
    et al
    Virologic and serologic markers of rapid progression to AIDS after HIV-1 seroconversion.
    J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol
    1996
    13
    448
    55
    PubMed
    CrossRef
    PubMed

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More
Submit a Comment

0 Comments

PDF
Not Available
Citations
Citation

Volberding PA. The New York Case: Lessons Being Learned. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:866–868. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-10-200505170-00114

Download citation file:

  • RIS (Zotero)
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • Medlars
  • ProCite
  • RefWorks
  • Reference Manager

© 2018

×
Permissions

Published: Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(10):866-868.

DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-10-200505170-00114

©
2005 American College of Physicians
2 Citations

See Also

The New York Case: Lessons Being Learned
Patient-to-Patient Transmission of Hepatitis C
View MoreView Less

Related Articles

Viral Dynamics of HIV: Implications for Drug Development and Therapeutic Strategies
Annals of Internal Medicine; 124 (11): 984-994
Host Determinants in HIV Infection and Disease: Part 2: Genetic Factors and Implications for Antiretroviral Therapeutics*
Annals of Internal Medicine; 134 (10): 978-996
Report of the NIH Panel To Define Principles of Therapy of HIV Infection*
Annals of Internal Medicine; 128 (12_Part_2): 1057-1078
Name-Based Surveillance and Public Health Interventions for Persons with HIV Infection
Annals of Internal Medicine; 131 (10): 775-779
View MoreView Less

Journal Club

Prophylactic tenofovir reduced HIV infection in injectable drug users
Annals of Internal Medicine; 159 (6): JC8
In early HIV infection, immediate vs deferred antiretroviral therapy reduced serious illnesses at 3 years
Annals of Internal Medicine; 163 (12): JC4
Isoniazid prevented active tuberculosis in patients with HIV treated with antiretroviral therapy
Annals of Internal Medicine; 161 (6): JC12
TDF-FTC before and after sex reduced HIV infection but increased GI, renal events in men who have sex with men
Annals of Internal Medicine; 164 (6): JC28
View MoreView Less

Related Point of Care

Management of Newly Diagnosed HIV Infection
Annals of Internal Medicine; 167 (1): ITC1-ITC16
Management of Newly Diagnosed HIV Infection
Annals of Internal Medicine; 155 (7): ITC4-1
View MoreView Less

Related Topics

HIV
Infectious Disease

HIV, Infectious Disease.

CME/MOC Activity Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
The Comments Feature Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
link to top

Content

  • Home
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives

Information For

  • Author Info
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Readers
  • Institutions / Libraries / Agencies
  • Advertisers

Services

  • Subscribe
  • Renew
  • Alerts
  • Current Issue RSS
  • Online First RSS
  • In the Clinic RSS
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • Help
  • About Annals
  • About Mobile
  • Patient Information
  • Teaching Tools
  • Annals in the News
  • Share Your Feedback

Awards

  • Personae Photography Prize
  • Junior Investigator Awards
  • Poetry Prize

Other Resources

  • ACP Online
  • Career Connection
  • ACP Advocate Blog
  • ACP Journal Wise

Follow Annals On

  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
acp link acp
silverchair link silverchair

Copyright © 2018 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.

Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704

Privacy Policy

|

Conditions of Use

×

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.

×
PDF Downloads Require Access to the Full Article.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
Annals of Internal Medicine
PURCHASE OPTIONS
Buy This Article|Subscribe
You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
Access to this Free Content Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In. Please Choose One of the Following Options
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×